"Always remember the difference between economic power and political power: You can refuse to hire someone's services or buy his products in the private sector and go somewhere else instead. In the public sector, though, if you refuse to accept a politician's or bureaucrat's product or services you go to jail. Ultimately, after all, all regulations are observed and all taxes are paid at gunpoint. I believe those few who can't even see that have been short-sighted sheep...." ~ Rick Gaber

You Say You Want a Revolution?

Logical Consistency Warning: Severe mental discomfort may result from any serious consideration of the comparison made in the following essay. Please disregard said comparison as ridiculous in order to restore previous state of mental tranquility.

Here is a familiar passage that any self-respecting Patriot recognizes and supports:

". . . that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . . . ."

Disciples of the Founding Fathers often cite the above extract from the Declaration of Independence and its endorsement of armed revolution as the proper and just method for The People to take back control of The Government run amok.

Well, we are currently being treated to a live preview of such action, and I'm sensing that many upstanding, moral Constitutionalists don't approve of what they are witnessing. But of course that’s because they don't make the connection. Or else refuse to.

If you want to know what revolution looks like, check out what's happening in California. A gentleman named Christopher Dorner is currently undertaking an armed rebellion against a tyrannical organization. He has killed people and is threatening to kill some more.

This is the stark ugliness that is baked into supposedly noble sentiments such as "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." If you disapprove of Mr. Dorner's actions, then I can't see how you can advocate for revolution, which is the exact same idea, only with lots more murder.

Wait—what?! That’s a horribly offensive, invalid comparison! He killed innocent people! Besides, he is just an individual. That doesn't count. A real revolution requires The People to undertake the measure, not just a single individual who has irresponsibly decided to take the law into his own hands. If The People decide to endure the injustices put forth by the government, then no individual has the right to take up arms against the system on his own.

Well, as far as the killing of innocents goes, in any “real” revolution, there will be many such people killed. On purpose, even. That is the price that must be paid if you want to play this game. In the chaos of revolution, there will be many Dorners exacting revenge in ways that suit them. This is Pandora’s Box you’re opening, not a box of chocolates. Many innocent people will be killed, and this must be justified as “being worth it” or else the strategy must be abandoned.

As for the rest, what a fine example of Slavespeak! We can kill but you cannot. We are special and you are mundane. The ugliness you wreak as an individual is unethical, because only when We kill in industrial quantities for The One True Just Cause is such killing justified and downright noble. As an individual, you are nothing. You shall bear the thumb being pressed into your forehead until We decide otherwise. Now get back in line, you. We are The People. You have been assimilated.

This is what logical inconsistency looks like: The tyranny of government shall be countered by the tyranny of The People, with the individual at all times remaining subservient to both illusory creatures. Jim Davies recently summed up quite nicely the beauty and simplicity of logical consistency as it applies to aggression in a recent essay here on STR, complete with some easy-to-follow examples. If I recall correctly, the takeaway message was “A is A.” There was no asterisk with fine print copy below that stated “except when A is B.” This is simplicity itself, not rocket surgery.

Of course Dorner's actions will not change the system except to strengthen it, because he is using the system's signature tool—aggression. Already the proposal to use drones against him is being trotted out. Thanks for the excuse! Drones are Absolutely Necessary to catch this domestic terrorist! The winner will justify whatever use of force it employs because that’s what winners do. And so if Dorner were to actually succeed in overthrowing the entire LAPD, he would be called a hero and the LAPD would be the ones painted with the Big Brush o’ Evil, and then he would be in the position to rule the LAPD through force. What might happen then?

And this is why revolutions are merely wheels spinning in the mud that keep people revolving around a central hub of aggression, whirling around in an endlessly destructive cycle. We must begin to act as individuals in order to break out of this, and that is not to say by individually taking up arms against the aggressors. Instead, walk away and take your spoke out of the wheel and take it with you, and encourage others to do the same. The wheel cannot continue to spin without spokes. Disconnect from the violence. Unplug. The hub is useless when it is disconnected from the rest of the wheel.

You say you want a real solution? Revolutions feed the violence and keep the wheel spinning in place. Let's just end this ride once and for all and walk together to the destination that everyone really wants to reach. There will be, of course, those who will not benefit from such a mass abandonment and will attempt to stop it. The first defense is to stop providing guns and blessings to these people. The next step is to garner enough support for nonaggression to ensure that no one will dare stand in front of the exodus for fear of being trampled over.

There is one thing stronger than armies: an idea whose time has come.~Victor Hugo

The idea is nonaggression, and its time is coming.

But when you talk about destructionDon't you know that you can count me out~John Lennon, Revolution

Comments

"Of course Dorner's actions will not change the system except to strengthen it, because he is using the system's signature tool—aggression"

I don't think it necessarily follows that the system is strengthened when attacked (using its own methods or others). I think that it could reasonably be said that the thinking that leads to that conclusion is in the nature of slavishness itself.

This is neither approval or disapproval or Dorner's choice to resort to force. I believe that many peopla will say many things about Dorner over the next few weeks and that it will be very difficult to separate the facts from the chaff that will be thrown about.

There is good news in this for those who contemplate a confrontation with law enforcement. As was said by someone puported to be Al Qeada - erecting a stick with a rag on it in the desert is enough provocation to elicit a response from the US costing it billions of dollars.

'walk away and take your spoke out of the wheel and take it with you' - I agree, that this is a better choice if you have a choice to make. But it is much more difficult than simply sending your resume to some prospective employers, interviewing successfully and beginning a new job. (not intentionally lecturing to you but restatinig what is obvious of course)

If we were to leave the exisiting society/culture of slaves, quietly and peacefully, perhaps we would never have to defend ourselves against its force, but I would not consider disarming even after having succeeded at that. The US invades countries all the time to 'save the people' from horrible dictators.

You are not seriously suggesting that we become a mass so overwhelmingly large that 'they' would not dare stand in front of the stampede, are you? Have you ever taken part in a mob activity? Mobs don't think, they act.

I wish people didn't fear the cops, or the tax collectors, or the airport clowns who shake them down. But I don't see how allowing intimidation to continue bears any prospect of ending oppression.

"Of course Dorner's actions will not change the system except to strengthen it, because he is using the system's signature tool—aggression"

I don't think it necessarily follows that the system is strengthened when attacked (using its own methods or others). I think that it could reasonably be said that the thinking that leads to that conclusion is in the nature of slavishness itself.

***

You are correct, but the system is based on and dependent upon slavish thinking. The strongest gets to be in charge—attack leviathan, get squashed. The slaves tremble at the power being displayed. All such displays of power strengthen the grip over the people. Those who equate the government might with right are happy to see such strength. Many others simply submit out of fear. Government wins either way.

So until the basic mindset shifts in enough people's heads, these confrontations help the system. I do think that in the long run it will be the system's undoing, because eventually enough people will see it for what it is and will be adversely affected by it in direct and unpleasant manners, and the slavishness will dissipate. So the inevitably increasing bad behavior by the State is something that can be capitalized on, so long as there are people who can explain what's going on from a perspective that is outside of the system.

***

This is neither approval or disapproval or Dorner's choice to resort to force. I believe that many peopla will say many things about Dorner over the next few weeks and that it will be very difficult to separate the facts from the chaff that will be thrown about.

There is good news in this for those who contemplate a confrontation with law enforcement. As was said by someone puported to be Al Qeada - erecting a stick with a rag on it in the desert is enough provocation to elicit a response from the US costing it billions of dollars.

'walk away and take your spoke out of the wheel and take it with you' - I agree, that this is a better choice if you have a choice to make. But it is much more difficult than simply sending your resume to some prospective employers, interviewing successfully and beginning a new job. (not intentionally lecturing to you but restatinig what is obvious of course)

If we were to leave the exisiting society/culture of slaves, quietly and peacefully, perhaps we would never have to defend ourselves against its force, but I would not consider disarming even after having succeeded at that. The US invades countries all the time to 'save the people' from horrible dictators.
You are not seriously suggesting that we become a mass so overwhelmingly large that 'they' would not dare stand in front of the stampede, are you? Have you ever taken part in a mob activity? Mobs don't think, they act.

I wish people didn't fear the cops, or the tax collectors, or the airport clowns who shake them down. But I don't see how allowing intimidation to continue bears any prospect of ending oppression.

***

When I suggest walking away, it is a bit literal and a bit figurative. You don't actually have to relocate yourself, and you're not going to be able to extricate yourself from all the threats that surround you, but you can see them for what they really are and you can manage to safely evade many of them.

As far as the stampeding mob goes, again, not so literal. This collection of people sees the State for what it is and decides to ignore it as much as possible, and the more people that join in, the more ignoring can be done. The ignoring takes resources and respect away from the State, and if most people ridicule and disrespect the State, it really has no power. This is a mob made up of individuals all acting in their own best interest, and by avoiding the necessity of having to be actually physically all in the same general area, you avoid the herd mentality that can easily drive a mob of humans. The Tea Party leaps to mind here.

We all really need to step right on out of the system we are so used to thinking about, because there are no good solutions in there. That won't make the system disappear quickly, but new systems can be built inside of the shell of this one that can drain it of power until it eventually rots. With the continued development of ideas like Tor, Bitcoin, and Silk Road, people will decide more and more to keep what is rightfully theirs and turn their interactions into private transactions that no one can monitor. Look at what eBay did. That was just a sampler.

I believe this thing will crash all on its own one way or another. If there are alternative and better means to surviving afterwards, then people will naturally begin to use them. Although most people won't make much concrete change until they absolutely have to, if the ideas are in their heads that there are in fact possible alternatives, then when choices are forced the alternatives may finally get their chance.

Right now the main thing everyone can begin to work on in terms of making change is themselves, mainly between their own ears. Frustratingly slow, but you can either choose to do it right, or do it over and over.

Another masterpiece, Tzo, thank you. And another strong argument for nonviolence. Couple of questions:

1. I love your "spoke" analogy. Is that available for rent, or is it in the public domain?

2. Is it a fact that even in the Revolutionary War (perhaps the closest to what a patriots' war on government would be like) innocents were not only killed but deliberately targeted ("on purpose, even") like Dorner targeted his attorney's daughter and her fiance'?

1. The revolution of a wheel analogy lifted from a paragraph in Rose Wilder Lane's The Discovery of Freedom:

"When these revolts succeed, they are called revolutions. But they are revolutions only in the sense that a wheel's turning is a revolution. An Old World revolution is only a movement around a motionless center; it never breaks out of the circle. Firm in the center is belief in Authority. No more than the Communist or the National Socialist (Nazi) today, has any Old World revolutionist ever questioned that belief; they all take it for granted that some Authority controls individuals."

2. To me, it seems inevitable that war equals innocent people getting killed on purpose. But we do tend to have the idea that wars back then were more 'civilized' and constrained much more to soldiers on the battlefield. And yet…

Without having read too much of the details, and it seems many have been scrubbed from history and replaced with words like 'persecuted' and 'treated harshly,' I would be willing to infer that more than a little nastiness is associated with the following summaries:

During the war, … Loyalists … estimated ... from 30,000 - 35,000, at one time or other, enrolled in regularly organized corps, but rebel tactics of attacking their homes deterred others joining, particularly in the southern colonies.

In rebel controlled areas Loyalists were subject to confiscation of property, tar and feathering or even being murdered. They could be arrested and fined for being loyal to the British, many were blackmailed, whipped, abused, threatened, and attacked by mobs of revolutionaries. So to be identified as a Loyalist was dangerous, meaning true numbers of Loyalists is not known, but an estimated 30,000 were either forced or decided to leave the thirteen colonies during the war and a further 70,000 left with the British troops when they evacuated held territory, in total about 5% of the population.

From a Rothbard article:
Scholars have shown increased interest in recent years in the fate of Tories during the Revolution. Among the best works are William H. Nelson, The American Tory and Paul H. Smith, Loyalists and Redcoats: A Study in British Revolutionary Policy. Also see Mary Beth Norton, The British-Americans: The Loyalist Exiles in England 1774–1789; Carol Berkin, Jonathan Sewall: Odyssey of An American Loyalist; and Robert M. Calhoun, The Loyalists in Revolutionary America, 1760–1781.

Also, there are some specific recorded instances of atrocities, but they are all against Indians, who probably really don't count. You know, they had the excuse of not really knowing better back then, so they get a pass. They certainly wouldn't do such things against other white folks!

"if most people ridicule and disrespect the State, it really has no power. This is a mob made up of individuals all acting in their own best interest"

This is truth. It is a fact that the state's power comes from the people, just as Bastiat said that tyranny and oppression issupported by its victims (a poor paraphrase but the point is evident).

We know that the state we have today is the result of millions of people making choices over a long period of time. It is also true that the state, with the aquiescence of the people has become the teacher - the model for thought - for justice or injustice. Learned Hand had something to say about that. And the manner of the change from free people to dependent and impotent serfs happended over time and by 'stealthy encroachments' (another justice in another case).